-Caveat Lector- >>>For those of you who are unfamiliar with Rand and would like some information as to *why* some connect her with the Wizrd of Oz. A<>E<>R <<<
From http://www.jrnyquist.com/march26/critique_of_ayn_rand.htm }}}>Begin Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, written by Greg Nyquist, represents a new contribution to understanding Rand’s so-called “Objectivist” philosophy. Rand’s views on human nature, epistemology, history, religion, society, politics, sex and art are shown to be at odds with the findings of major scientists and scholars. COMING SOON! A note from Greg Nyquist: Ayn Rand may be the most widely read American philosopher of the twentieth century. Certainly, no American philosopher has sold more books to the general public than Rand—over thirty million at last count, with over a half million being sold on a yearly basis. Rand’s legacy is widespread and enduring. Why it has not received the attention of scholars is puzzling and perhaps even scandalous. Her philosophical views, many of which are extremely controversial, literally cry out for interpretation and criticism. But little along these lines has appeared. In Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, I have endeavored to make up for this deficiency. My book has two specific purposes. First, I want to explain how Rand’s philosophy came into being. What were Rand’s principle motives in developing her various philosophic doctrines? What was its primary raison d’être of her entire Objectivist system? My second purpose was to determine the factual veracity of Rand’s various philosophical contentions. Does her view of man, of history, of human knowledge, of society, of art accord with the facts? Or are her views of these matters simply one vast tissue of distortion, half-truths, misinterpretations, and even downright falsehoods? In order to answer these questions, I could not settle for mere analysis of the logical coherence of Rand’s philosophy. No, that would not do at all. Rand’s views need to be tested scientifically—which is to say, by comparing them with the relevant factual evidence. The tendency with previous critics of Rand has always been to try to attack Rand with logical argumentation. I have never found such critiques to be very compelling. They inevitably degenerate into arguments about words. I have no interest in squabbling about words. What I want to know is whether Rand’s contentions about reality are true; and the only way to settle this question is through a consultation with the relevant facts. To try to settle it in any other way would be a waste of time. In pursuing these two goals, I quickly found a common thread running through the entire Objectivist system. Rand had several times remarked that the goal of her writing was “the projection of an ideal man.” “My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Rearden or Francisco d’Anconia as an end in himself—not as a means to a further end.” In her essay “The Goal of my Writing” (Romantic Manifesto, pp. 162-172), Rand explained how this goal led to the establishment of her philosophy: Since my purpose is the presentation of an ideal man, I had to define and present the conditions which make him possible and which his existence requires. Since man’s character is the product of his premises, I had to define and present the kind of premises and values that create the character of an ideal man and motivate his actions; which means that I had to define and present a rational code of ethics. Since man acts among and deals with other men, I had to present the kind of social system that makes it possible for ideal men to exist and to function—a free, productive, rational system, which demands and rewards the best in every man, great or average, and which is, obviously, laissez-faire capitalism. Rand could not be much clearer in stating the main purpose behind her Objectivist system than this. Her primary motivation was to create a philosophical foundation for her “ideal man.” In pursuing this goal, she not only had to define what constitutes an ideal man, she also had to explicate the moral and political framework needed to make such an entity possible. But almost from the start we come across a very serious problem. If Rand’s conception of the ideal man is examined critically, something soon becomes apparent. This ideal man does not correspond to any of the scientists, builders, scholars or anyone else ever found in reality. This ideal man is a product of Rand’s imagination, not a copy of any actual living being. Rand, however, wished to defend him as a real possibility. This placed her in a difficult position. Since the view of man presented by literature, history, and science contradicts Rand’s view, she had to explain why she was right and all the great philosophers, novelists, poets, historians and scientists of Western Civilization were wrong. In my opinion, this is the great question at stake in any debate over Rand’s Objectivist philosophy. Who is right about the nature of man? The great writers and thinkers of Western Civilization, or Ayn Rand? Although Rand never explicitly confronted this issue, we find implicit manifestations of it surfacing, not only in her philosophical writings, but in her estimations of the great writers and thinkers of Western Culture. Rand had very little to say on the behalf of the cultural heritage of Western Civilization. The only great literary artists she ever said anything positive about in print were Victor Hugo, Dostoevsky, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henryk Sienkiewicz, Friedrich Schiller, and Edmond Rostand. Nor did she have any use for the work of most of the great social thinkers of Western Civilization. Rand and her leading disciples have made disdainful comments about such eminent figures in Western social science as David Hume, Edmund Burke, Alexis d’Tocqueville, Max Weber, George Sorel, Robert Michels, Frank Knight and Friedrich Hayek. The only social scientists Rand approved of were those who, like Ludwig von Mises and Henry Hazlitt, uncompromisingly supported laissez-faire capitalism. All others she either ignored or regarded with contempt. I had noted this aspect of Rand’s writings before I wrote my critique of her philosophy. But I had regarded it as simply the byproduct of Rand’s dogmatic politics and, as such, not to be taken too seriously. Only after I stumbled upon Rand’s statement regarding the principle motive behind her philosophy did I realize that Rand’s hostility to humanistic knowledge went beyond mere political fanaticism. Rand rejected humanistic knowledge because it contradicted the most basic principles of her philosophy, which she regarded as more important than the cultural heritage of Western Civilization. This cultural heritage must make way for a new Objectivist culture based on a dubious form of hero worship and “reason.” Shakespeare and the Bible, Tocqueville and Edmund Burke would have to take a second seat to Atlas Shrugged and Ian Fleming. I realize that this might strike Rand’s admirers as something of an exaggeration. Publicly, Rand always presented herself as a champion of Western Civilization. But this did not prevent her from privately denigrating Shakespeare or the Bible or Tocqueville or any other major writer she disliked. If we examine Rand’s record, there can be little doubt that she was opposed, on principle, to the cultural heritage of the West. This includes not only most of what passes for great literature, but most of what passes for important social science as well. I wrote Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature primarily with this aspect of her philosophy in mind. I wanted to defend humanistic knowledge against Rand’s attempt to dismiss it out of hand. I wanted to show that Rand’s view of man was entirely baseless, that neither science nor the "great books" supported it. Rand was an enemy of Western culture and science. The fact that she pretended to be a defender of culture and science is irrelevant. Her pretense, even if sincere, is not convincing. Science and culture say one thing about man, Rand says something entirely different. If Rand was a genuine defender of science and culture, she would not have opposed the view of human nature propagated by scientists, men of letters [and the Bible]. These remarks should clear up any confusion about the title of my book. While Ayn Rand perhaps did not oppose human nature per se, she certainly did oppose the conception of human nature that has been passed down to us from the cultural and scientific heritage of Western Civilization. It is in this sense Rand was opposed to human nature. If my title were perfectly accurate, it would have read something like Ayn Rand’s Conception of Human Nature Contra the Conception of Human Nature Developed by Western Literature and Science. But since this is a mouthful, I condensed it to Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature. In this abbreviated form, it sums up the central theme of the book. My book does not confine itself only to Rand’s conception of human nature. I also cover her theories of history, knowledge, reality, ethics, politics and art. What separates my book from others critical of Rand is that I emphasize the empirical and practical side of philosophical questions. I have little interest in purely technical philosophy, believing, with George Santayana, that most technical problems are best solved by never being raised in the first place. The central point at issue with Rand is not whether she is right about this or that abstruse philosophical problem, but whether her philosophy as a whole accords with factual reality. In judging any philosophical system, its factual veracity has to be the primary consideration. Moreover, it is precisely on the empirical side that Rand is most vulnerable. Her writings contain numerous empirical assertions that are at odds with the relevant factual evidence. A philosopher who took as many controversial positions as Rand should not be allowed to get away with taking such enormous liberties with the facts. Critics of Rand are often accused of misinterpreting her work. The underlying assumption of this view is that anyone who dares to question Rand’s authority must be guilty of willfully distorting Rand’s views. I don’t see how this criticism could apply to Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature. I have merely taken Rand at her word. She claimed that the primary motivation of her writing was the projection of an ideal man, and that everything else, including her philosophical principles, are secondary consequences of this one great goal. How can anyone object to taking this confession seriously and using it as an interpretive touchstone to understand her system of thought? What I find most surprising is that no one else has thought of examining Rand from this vantage point. Rand’s critics have focused their attention almost exclusively on her theories of knowledge, morals and politics. A few of her critics have noted her rather strange theory of human nature, but none of them have given it more than cursory treatment. I believe this constitutes a serious oversight in Randian criticism. Rand’s theory of human nature is the most fundamental point of her entire philosophy. It explains not only the motivation behind her thought; it also helps us understand some of problems she faced in the development of her system. Since Rand’s view of man does not accord with the facts, her defense of it led to a number of difficulties which needed to be explained away. Some of Rand’s most peculiar philosophical positions can be accounted for on this basis alone. Her theory of history, for example, can be seen as an attempt to explain why the evidence of history does not support Rand’s view of human nature. This is important, because Rand’s theory of history leads directly to her theory of knowledge. If you want to know why she considered the problem of universals as the most critical in epistemological philosophy, you have to understand her theory of history. But her theory of history is inexplicable without her theory of man. Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature can be read on a number of different levels. It can be read merely as criticism of Rand, or as criticism of dogmatic rationalism, or as a defense of the traditional view of human nature advanced by religion, literature and science. No special knowledge of Rand’s Objectivist philosophy is required to understand the book. Extended summaries are provided of every relevant doctrine in Objectivism. And, in an effort to make Rand’s philosophy more comprehensible, I have tried to explain the motivational logic behind her views. If the reader can grasp the underlying psychological motivation behind Rand’s doctrines of history, human knowledge, ethics, sex, and art, he should have no trouble grasping the arguments Rand advanced in defense of these doctrines. To provide a more exact idea of the nature of my book, this site offers sample excerpts. The first excerpt introduces Rand and explains her significance as a cultural figure. The second and third excerpts are taken from the first chapter, which examines Rand’s theory of human nature. Next are excerpts from chapters on Rand’s theories of metaphysics, ethics and politics. The bibliography is provided to give the reader an idea of the sources that went into the book. Sample Introduction http://www.jrnyquist.com/march26/sample_intro.htm Sample Chapter http://www.jrnyquist.com/march26/sample_chapter_5.htm One End<{{{ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, German Writer (1759-1805) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." --- Ernest Hemingway <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
